Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

@Zileas - Counter Play

@Zileas I'm semi-curious how you feel about Blitz Q, I know there is a counter to it, (dodge it) but its still one of the single most unfun things to play against(in my personal opinion) and in every draft and ranked game I've ever played blitz is either banned or picked.(I will admit I have not been above 1200 elo ever, I dont play much ranked) Is this an example of a bad mechanic? i mean there is no feeling of goodness for a person getting hooked because over half the time(95% of the time) getting hooked = dying and is purely satisfactory for the blitz player himself.

Concerning Blitzcrank, there are a lovely number of counterplay options.
Kayle: She heals, and her ultimate counters a Blitz hook.Lulu: Only shields, but again the ultimate + movespeed or silence can turn a Blitz hook into a death for Blitzcrank instead.Caitlyn: Can quite safely farm from behind creeps, counterpush if the enemy tries to clear her creep wave, and set traps to scare Blitz out the side brush.

Now each of these characters are considered 'sub-optimal' for various reasons, but that's the point. By sacrificing some raw power in your character selection, you get to negate one of your opponent's strategies which they rely upon for their own power. Counterplay.

Concerning Blitzcrank, there are a lovely number of counterplay options.
Kayle: She heals, and her ultimate counters a Blitz hook.Lulu: Only shields, but again the ultimate + movespeed or silence can turn a Blitz hook into a death for Blitzcrank instead.Caitlyn: Can quite safely farm from behind creeps, counterpush if the enemy tries to clear her creep wave, and set traps to scare Blitz out the side brush.

Now each of these characters are considered 'sub-optimal' for various reasons, but that's the point. By sacrificing some raw power in your character selection, you get to negate one of your opponent's strategies which they rely upon for their own power. Counterplay.

Oh I forgot, the infamous lvl1 banshee's... (That was sarcastic btw) You need 2715g to get it. 2715g that your adc needs to put into damage because the enemy adc will and if you don't, guess who will win trades or replace adc with support and support items and get the same. 2715g to counter 1 ability of blitz - Sure it might be his chain ability but it has a 45sec cd whereas blitz hook has a cd of 20 / 19 / 18 / 17 / 16 sec (Though let's say 20 as it's usually the thing skilled last).
Also, you're pretty much defenseless until you get those 2715g, just sayin'.

Facts aside having to buy a single almost 3k gold item to counter 1 ability is a bit harsh. Look at some assassins, 700g can counter their whole build already. Imo this is complete bs.

And about those counters sure, you can try those - In fact if I see a blitz I always ask for Cait - but what happens if you get grabbed as Lux/Morg/Lulu? You're dead pretty quick. Even if you counter him with a snare who will die quicker, a squishy mage or tank-blitz with his manabarrier? Fakt aside that he has not only the grab but also a knockup and a pretty long silence. Enough to seal that coffin for you.

Also I find it funny how someone said "blitz is fine" and also "i had a 100% win rate which only broke on the adc's end". Don't you think having a 100% or near as winrate may point to something being broken? He's hard to master, many screw up. On average his i.e. lolking winrate is okay but in the right hands as you said he's almost a guaranteed win.
And correct me if I'm wrong but when Zyra was a guaranteed win she got hit pretty hard with the nerfbat until she was semi okay.

Concerning Blitzcrank, there are a lovely number of counterplay options.
Kayle: She heals, and her ultimate counters a Blitz hook.Lulu: Only shields, but again the ultimate + movespeed or silence can turn a Blitz hook into a death for Blitzcrank instead.Caitlyn: Can quite safely farm from behind creeps, counterpush if the enemy tries to clear her creep wave, and set traps to scare Blitz out the side brush.

BVeil's honestly a crappy counter. All it takes is one AOE spammable spell to pop your shield, then you're vulnerable for another 45 seconds. As to the other counters: first, they don't work pre-6 (except for Caitlyn, which was a cute way of saying "don't get grabbed&quot. Second, they're on long cooldowns post-6 (both counters were ults). Lastly, they don't really "counter" what Blitz is doing, they just seek to mitigate it. By this, I'd contrast with the counters that are in play currently: playing someone tanky enough to survive the hook and counter-lockdown with damage - i.e. Leona, Taric, Alistar. However, at this point, you're restricting the champions who can lane against Blitz and I'd argue that you're no longer talking soft counters, but the hard counters that Dota has and LoL tries to avoid.

I'd recommend putting underdrive back on his overdrive, to make Blitz think twice about spamming overdrive (and present more counterplay) and upping cooldown on mana barrier for starters. As it is, Blitz doesn't have many difficult decisions to make tactically. Sure, you need to land the grab, but what's really the penalty if you don't? It's not very high, and it's even easier to land the grab if you bull rush their carry with overdrive beforehand.

One area in which dota and LoL differ a lot, and an area we've spent a lot of effort trying to evolve the genre, is on the idea of hard counters.

Hard counters, by their definition, allow for very limited counterplay. In some sense, they are a pre-planned rock-paper-scissors scenario -- I am now playing rock, you have scissors, so you lose. This happens with a lot more frequency in DOTA lane matchups and in item purchase decisions, and we sought to reduce these in evolving the genre.

My view on this is that when you have a hard counter, and by extension, a rock-paper-scissors scenario, you've eliminated the potential for further skill differentiate, nuance, etc to occur. In short, while it feels satisfying to have a hard counter, there's not a challenging, interesting game to be played on the receiving end at that point. Soft counters are better because they confer advantage and reward skill on the aggressor side also, but depend heavily upon execution, and thus, are more competitive and more vulnerable to defender interference via skill..

We've tried to enrich LoL by ensuring that in as many possible situations as we can, there is an interesting set of mechanics to play out that involves good execution. DOTA is very comfortable with either "A beats B", or "Once A has B, and presses the button at the right time, C can't help but lose". We want it to be more fluid and ongoing. The downside of this is that it's less possible for one button press to determine the entire outcome of a fight, but we think it's better to not do that in favor of a multiple-layered execution of soft counters. We just think it's more nuanced and interesting, and it's a large philosophical difference. In the end, we feel it builds a multiplayer experience that is both more competitive and more fun, most especially for our most competitive players.

Even though I play both games and won't say that one is superior to other one thing has always irked me about league and that is the idea of "trading" in lane. If you want to do damage you have to take damage, and while that's not always a 100% case truth I feel like it's true often enough to make it very frustrating experience, as who wins the lane often comes down to who can trade better or who has more jungle support. I feel like the skill component only really comes into play by recognizing when to play aggressive and when to play defensive, when do I want to force trades and when do I want to avoid them? As well as balancing the risk of being a lane bully versus overextending yourself. In Dota there are all kinds of sneaky things you can do to dish out some damage without being retaliated on and the skill component comes into play by recognizing how to harass the enemy hero without taking a lot of return fire. Overall I feel a lot more rewarded with the Dota method, I feel like I outplayed my lane opponent and get rewarded with free harass. Obviously this is something that's never going to happen in League and that's fine, the games went in distinct directions, but I felt like it was worth pointing out.

One area in which dota and LoL differ a lot, and an area we've spent a lot of effort trying to evolve the genre, is on the idea of hard counters.

Hard counters, by their definition, allow for very limited counterplay. In some sense, they are a pre-planned rock-paper-scissors scenario -- I am now playing rock, you have scissors, so you lose. This happens with a lot more frequency in DOTA lane matchups and in item purchase decisions, and we sought to reduce these in evolving the genre.

My view on this is that when you have a hard counter, and by extension, a rock-paper-scissors scenario, you've eliminated the potential for further skill differentiate, nuance, etc to occur. In short, while it feels satisfying to have a hard counter, there's not a challenging, interesting game to be played on the receiving end at that point. Soft counters are better because they confer advantage and reward skill on the aggressor side also, but depend heavily upon execution, and thus, are more competitive and more vulnerable to defender interference via skill..

We've tried to enrich LoL by ensuring that in as many possible situations as we can, there is an interesting set of mechanics to play out that involves good execution. DOTA is very comfortable with either "A beats B", or "Once A has B, and presses the button at the right time, C can't help but lose". We want it to be more fluid and ongoing. The downside of this is that it's less possible for one button press to determine the entire outcome of a fight, but we think it's better to not do that in favor of a multiple-layered execution of soft counters. We just think it's more nuanced and interesting, and it's a large philosophical difference. In the end, we feel it builds a multiplayer experience that is both more competitive and more fun, most especially for our most competitive players.

You forgot one more thing - it increases the possibility of exploration and discovery of new soft counters.

If every counter is a hard counter, then you don't have the ability to find ways to win in a losing scenario. LoL gives players, especially very good players, to look for better ways to use certain champions in a wider variety of situations. This attitude trickles down to less skilled players who can learn by observing, or they can even experiment themselves, knowing experimentation can produce great results.

One area in which dota and LoL differ a lot, and an area we've spent a lot of effort trying to evolve the genre, is on the idea of hard counters.

Hard counters, by their definition, allow for very limited counterplay. In some sense, they are a pre-planned rock-paper-scissors scenario -- I am now playing rock, you have scissors, so you lose. This happens with a lot more frequency in DOTA lane matchups and in item purchase decisions, and we sought to reduce these in evolving the genre.

My view on this is that when you have a hard counter, and by extension, a rock-paper-scissors scenario, you've eliminated the potential for further skill differentiate, nuance, etc to occur. In short, while it feels satisfying to have a hard counter, there's not a challenging, interesting game to be played on the receiving end at that point.

In-game, yes, but doesn't counters, etc. go beyond more than just the actual gameplay phase (ie: picks and bans?). Heck, even in LoL, I've heard competitive players (such as Scarra) state a large portion of the game is already decided during the picks and bans phase in LoL as well.

Quote:

We've tried to enrich LoL by ensuring that in as many possible situations as we can, there is an interesting set of mechanics to play out that involves good execution. DOTA is very comfortable with either "A beats B", or "Once A has B, and presses the button at the right time, C can't help but lose". We want it to be more fluid and ongoing. The downside of this is that it's less possible for one button press to determine the entire outcome of a fight, but we think it's better to not do that in favor of a multiple-layered execution of soft counters. We just think it's more nuanced and interesting, and it's a large philosophical difference. In the end, we feel it builds a multiplayer experience that is both more competitive and more fun, most especially for our most competitive players.

This also, essentially means carries are never, well, carries (in the fullest extent); they're just a very very large factor/threat in the late game---that said, at the same time, I'd say carries in LoL are a bit less dependent on their supports (with a few exceptions) than the carries in DotA are.

Also, again, Zileas, could you please address this?

Quote:

Zileas:

Uh, LoveMyRMB, one of the assistant designers, pretty much steamrolls with tryndamere in top tier solo queue (he's like 2500). I honestly don't think it's that far off, and s3 has a lot of nuance in it related to how defenses scale, what mobility options and kiting options are available, etc which may modify how this plays off.

We'll see, but I'm still extremely skeptical and doubtful of this---could you give me an example of how the addition of kiting (and some of the new items) and the defense scaling could possibly make melee carries more viable while still retaining superior DPS to a ranged carry (because, the way I see it, if a melee carry's DPS is inferior to a ranged carry, then you're better off just picking a second ranged carry and going with that...especially considering there's a few that can survive top lane an mid lane).

Even though I play both games and won't say that one is superior to other one thing has always irked me about league and that is the idea of "trading" in lane. If you want to do damage you have to take damage, and while that's not always a 100% case truth I feel like it's true often enough to make it very frustrating experience, as who wins the lane often comes down to who can trade better or who has more jungle support. I feel like the skill component only really comes into play by recognizing when to play aggressive and when to play defensive, when do I want to force trades and when do I want to avoid them? As well as balancing the risk of being a lane bully versus overextending yourself. In Dota there are all kinds of sneaky things you can do to dish out some damage without being retaliated on and the skill component comes into play by recognizing how to harass the enemy hero without taking a lot of return fire. Overall I feel a lot more rewarded with the Dota method, I feel like I outplayed my lane opponent and get rewarded with free harass. Obviously this is something that's never going to happen in League and that's fine, the games went in distinct directions, but I felt like it was worth pointing out.

The problem is "free harass" is a gimmick. You can only do it because your opponent is bad, not because you're good. A good opponent would know what you're able to do and how you can pull of your free harass. He would be able to avoid giving you the opportunity to do it 100% of the time. Or, he could use it to bait you into a position where you can be ganked or take more damage because his ultimate is up now or he has a specific item that gives massive advantage, like blink dagger or sheep stick.

I feel that a lot of people's complaints about skill differentiation in Dota vs LoL come down to how good the general player population is in the two games. In Dota, players know one or two gimmicky tricks on a couple of champions and that's it. But every champion has gimmicky tricks. There are a lot of champions, and they are always available. To be able to succeed in LoL, you need to know how to play your champion, but you also need to know how to play the opposite side of the matchup - if you were playing the other champion and he was playing yours, what would you do to win? In Dota, regular players don't approach games that way. That's why free harass is possible.

Once Dota 2 is released and is no longer in beta (LoL PBE isn't exactly the best place to look for skilled play) and the matchmaker starts separating the good from the average, I think you would find that the skill advantage you enjoy now will disappear.

A good example of what you describe in LoL is Kennen. Play Kennen against someone who doesn't know how he works, and you'll get tons of free harass on the other guy. You'll stun him, pound him, and kill him. Play him against someone who knows the way Kennen plays, and suddenly you're trading for damage and hoping to come out on top.

Trading damage vs free damage is a consequence of skill difference, not game mechanics. The skill component is there in LoL just as much as Dota. Play Kat in normals and see how much free damage you get on your lane opponent.

The problem is "free harass" is a gimmick. You can only do it because your opponent is bad, not because you're good. A good opponent would know what you're able to do and how you can pull of your free harass. He would be able to avoid giving you the opportunity to do it 100% of the time. Or, he could use it to bait you into a position where you can be ganked or take more damage because his ultimate is up now or he has a specific item that gives massive advantage, like blink dagger or sheep stick.

I feel that a lot of people's complaints about skill differentiation in Dota vs LoL come down to how good the general player population is in the two games. In Dota, players know one or two gimmicky tricks on a couple of champions and that's it. But every champion has gimmicky tricks. There are a lot of champions, and they are always available. To be able to succeed in LoL, you need to know how to play your champion, but you also need to know how to play the opposite side of the matchup - if you were playing the other champion and he was playing yours, what would you do to win? In Dota, regular players don't approach games that way. That's why free harass is possible.

Once Dota 2 is released and is no longer in beta (LoL PBE isn't exactly the best place to look for skilled play) and the matchmaker starts separating the good from the average, I think you would find that the skill advantage you enjoy now will disappear.

A good example of what you describe in LoL is Kennen. Play Kennen against someone who doesn't know how he works, and you'll get tons of free harass on the other guy. You'll stun him, pound him, and kill him. Play him against someone who knows the way Kennen plays, and suddenly you're trading for damage and hoping to come out on top.

Trading damage vs free damage is a consequence of skill difference, not game mechanics. The skill component is there in LoL just as much as Dota. Play Kat in normals and see how much free damage you get on your lane opponent.

That's completely untrue. Most of it comes from all the vision exploiting you can do in the game. The more skilled you are the more ways you figure out how to get free damage out. There's tons of things you can do with trees (and eating them) and juke spots as well as high ground advantage especially in mid lane. That's why in competitive dota you see all kinds of crazy **** going on. And also why a pro player at 1/8 HP can easily kill a noob at full 1v1. That's impossible to do in League without at least a moderate advantage over the other player.